A Duty To Die?

[TheDaddy]

Archbishop changes mind on right to die

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...dying-proposal

I don't think I'd have a massive problem with this if we could be certain it wouldn't get changed or ammended but I don't trust our leaders to protect our best interests.

[TheDaddy]

Business is booming

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...2008-2012.html

[Ignitionnet]

Not surprising. Health care is such that people are living longer knowing that their illness will kill them eventually. Just a question of suffering and loss of dignity.

---------- Post added at 17:41 ---------- Previous post was at 17:38 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

A fine example of exactly what we should be trying to avoid imo

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-after-3382668

Her life, her decision.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Her life, her decision.

But it shouldn't be up to the state or big business to assist her for profit imo

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

But it shouldn't be up to the state or big business to assist her for profit imo

Also her decision the manner in which she took her life. She could've killed herself but chose to go to Switzerland and use Dignitas. So long as she was at no point under duress I don't see a problem. Dignitas offered a service, she paid for it and used it.

The state shouldn't be involved in this. Either assisting the suicides or obstructing them and prosecuting those involved.

The right to die at a time a terminally ill person sees fit, in the best possible place they are able to, in the least painful manner is something the state should get out of the way of.

Her case is a little more difficult however her health was fading and she feared losing her independence. It was her choice to end her life at that time, I've seen no-one suggest otherwise, and to die with her faculties and dignity intact.

No-one likes talking about death but it's going to happen to all of us. I find the state forcing people to spend their last months / years in pain and without dignity abhorrent.

It's all about the safeguards; they are tricky but they are doable.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Also her decision the manner in which she took her life. She could've killed herself but chose to go to Switzerland and use Dignitas. So long as she was at no point under duress I don't see a problem. Dignitas offered a service, she paid for it and used it.

The state shouldn't be involved in this. Either assisting the suicides or obstructing them and prosecuting those involved.

The right to die at a time a terminally ill person sees fit, in the best possible place they are able to, in the least painful manner is something the state should get out of the way of.

Her case is a little more difficult however her health was fading and she feared losing her independence. It was her choice to end her life at that time, I've seen no-one suggest otherwise, and to die with her faculties and dignity intact.

No-one likes talking about death but it's going to happen to all of us. I find the state forcing people to spend their last months / years in pain and without dignity abhorrent.

It's all about the safeguards; they are tricky but they are doable.

They're not do able, the safe guards already in place have been abused over and over as referenced in this thread already. The mentally ill killed, the healthy killed, the young killed etc etc etc and speaking of dignity how much dignity is there in having your remains tossed in a lake.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They're not do able, the safe guards already in place have been abused over and over as referenced in this thread already. The mentally ill killed, the healthy killed, the young killed etc etc etc and speaking of dignity how much dignity is there in having your remains tossed in a lake.

About as much as laying on a bed unable to move, covered in bed sores, peeing yourself, crapping yourself, Being fed through a tube, drifting in and out of consciousnous.

Yes very dignified, I do hope my loved ones do that for me when the time comes.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They're not do able, the safe guards already in place have been abused over and over as referenced in this thread already. The mentally ill killed, the healthy killed, the young killed etc etc etc and speaking of dignity how much dignity is there in having your remains tossed in a lake.

Ridiculous last phrase, implying that assisted suicide somehow equates to mistreatment of a corpse.

Firstly I care about dignity for the living more than for the dead. All evidence points to that we won't have any idea what happens to our bodies after death for a really simple reason - we'll be dead. Any care for the body is more about looking after those who are still alive, their feelings, their concerns, and their emotions. The body is an empty shell that looks like someone they used to know but has now passed. It is no more the person who died than a shred of skin from that person is.

There are no perfect safeguards when things are prone to abuse - none. Like pretty much everything else there's a cost:benefit analysis there and the evidence, sorry if I keep using that word, from countries that have legalised assisted euthanasia and have robust safeguards is that the benefits outweigh the costs.

I think you're being paranoid and opposing assisted euthanasia for the wrong reasons. If there are amendments that go down the slippery slope of involuntary euthanasia or weaken safeguards then yes, absolutely, those should be opposed.

Merely permitting assisted euthanasia however is humane, compassionate, and will bring comfort to those who are dying, knowing that they can end their lives in the manner they see fit at the time they see fit, rather than lingering on in doubt and pain, gradually losing their faculties until finally their body can no longer sustain them.

[Osem]

There's no perfect solution to this but forcing people to suffer when they patently don't want to is as absurd as it is cruel. In worrying about potential abuse of any safeguards, some people seem to be more than willing to accept that dreadful reality that many helpless and extremely sick/disabled peope are actually suffering through their conditions and the uncaring and undignified (even abusive) treatment they have to endure.

No it's not a black and white issue but I know which option I would prefer and it isn't years of suffering the pain and misery of a terminal illness whilst either burdening my loved ones or relying on others for my every need.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Ridiculous last phrase, implying that assisted suicide somehow equates to mistreatment of a corpse.

Firstly I care about dignity for the living more than for the dead. All evidence points to that we won't have any idea what happens to our bodies after death for a really simple reason - we'll be dead. Any care for the body is more about looking after those who are still alive, their feelings, their concerns, and their emotions. The body is an empty shell that looks like someone they used to know but has now passed. It is no more the person who died than a shred of skin from that person is.

There are no perfect safeguards when things are prone to abuse - none. Like pretty much everything else there's a cost:benefit analysis there and the evidence, sorry if I keep using that word, from countries that have legalised assisted euthanasia and have robust safeguards is that the benefits outweigh the costs.

I think you're being paranoid and opposing assisted euthanasia for the wrong reasons. If there are amendments that go down the slippery slope of involuntary euthanasia or weaken safeguards then yes, absolutely, those should be opposed.

Merely permitting assisted euthanasia however is humane, compassionate, and will bring comfort to those who are dying, knowing that they can end their lives in the manner they see fit at the time they see fit, rather than lingering on in doubt and pain, gradually losing their faculties until finally their body can no longer sustain them.

I'm not being paranoid, here's what a doctor and former supporter says about assisted suicide in Holland and how we'd be foolish to follow their lead.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-killing.html

When you read some of the stories in this thread it'd be impossible not to support assisted dying when someone has locked in syndrome or something equally horrible but as the doctor has witnessed the reality is very different in Holland.

The vast majority of doctors here don't support it and less than 20% will participate in it if legalised

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/most-docto...115724259.html

Oh and the last phrase of my previous post isn't ridiculous, it shows what happens when business is allowed in to something as sensitive as this, rules ignored, corners cut all in the name of profit.

[TheDaddy]

Thousands of dying patients are being let down by poor end-of-life care provision, the organisation that makes final decisions about NHS complaints in England has said.

One example, said the ombudsman, was a patient who had suffered 14 unnecessary and painful attempts to have a drip reinserted during his final hours.

It investigated more than 300 complaints, upholding most of them.

The government said improving end-of-life care was a priority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32797768

All of a sudden assisted suicide doesn't seem so bad

[Ignitionnet]

I had not actually read your post before this one, however a comment on that article says what I would have.

n1cky, Lowestoft, United Kingdom, 10 months ago
The number of deaths by euthanasia is irrelevant. As long as they are being carried out adhering to legislation and with the appropriate levels in place to safeguard mentally or emotionally vulnerable individuals then whatever the number it is is the right number.

The comment about it becoming the standard death for terminally ill cancer sufferers means that it is doing what it was intended to do, allowing them to die a more peaceful and less painful death. Allowing cancer to run its course is horrific in the final stages!

The last year of life is a huge proportion of a person's entire lifetime's healthcare bill. It's one of the key places where lack of funding of the NHS will manifest unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I had not actually read your post before this one, however a comment on that article says what I would have.



The last year of life is a huge proportion of a person's entire lifetime's healthcare bill. It's one of the key places where lack of funding of the NHS will manifest unfortunately.

Mainly due to the high cost of drugs, and supporting palliative care.

My bro-in-law, who was an academic medical researcher, but has worked at various big Pharma companies for the last 20 years, is in discussions with a Pharma company in New England, in it's "Rare Drugs" division - they have one drug which can treat a disease which affects 20 people in a million, which costs $400k per patient per year.

The challenge we, as a country, face, is things that people used to die of are now treatable (a good thing), but often it can be for years at a very high cost, which has a major impact on day to day running costs of hospitals/health care centres - we need to stand back and think about how we can fund this paradigm shift, as long as it is free at the point of access.

I personally think the German model would work better for us as a country, providing the funding required.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

they have one drug which can treat a disease which affects 20 people in a million, which costs $400k per patient per year.

Which you have to question why these drugs costs so much.

is it because the ingredients have been specially collected from a far away galaxy where no man has ventured before?

in other words. could these 'expensive' drugs be sold for £5 a pop in the real world. if you take greed and profit out of it?

Originally Posted by Gary L

Which you have to question why these drugs costs so much.

is it because the ingredients have been specially collected from a far away galaxy where no man has ventured before?

in other words. could these 'expensive' drugs be sold for £5 a pop in the real world. if you take greed and profit out of it?

No, it's usually because it can take over ten years to develop, test, and gain regulatory approval, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds, if not over a billion dollars.

http://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Pr...it-1.7-billion

Then, they only have 20 years after the patent is filed for exclusivity - generic copies can be made after this time.